FYI.

This story is over 5 years old.

Tech

HIV: 30 Years of Sadness and Terror, and Maybe Some Hope

Thirty years ago last week, the U.S. Centers for Disease control published a landmark paper defining HIV. In 1981, the virus was a terrifying unknown that seemed to killed more and more sorts of people--first the gay community, then IV drug-users...

Thirty years ago last week, the U.S. Centers for Disease control published a landmark paper defining HIV. In 1981, the virus was a terrifying unknown that seemed to killed more and more sorts of people—first the gay community, then IV drug-users, hemophiliacs, Haitians, and, finally, anybody—in more and more ways. HIV is the virus from hell—or, it’s the virus that reveals the startling calibration of evolution, its potential for nightmarish perfection. Even more than human beings do. And so much so that the research community has by and large given up on finding a cure. The “c” word itself is nearly taboo. At the National Institutes for Health (again, in the U.S.), just 3-percent of its total HIV research budget is spent on working toward a cure.

Advertisement

There’s been an understandable swarm of media coverage of the anniversary in the past week, some of it quite sad (albeit fascinating, at least the linked piece) and some of it hopeful, like this absolute must-read New York mag piece about Timothy Brown, e.g. the “Berlin patient,” the only human that medicine has completely cured of HIV. And, most importantly, what Brown has meant for reinvigorating the search for a cure. Which is hope, of course.

The problem is that knowing a cure is possible is different that attaining a cure. There must be a will. New York’s Tina Rosenburg sums it up nicely:

While the pharmaceutical industry has sunk hundreds of millions of dollars into developing AIDS treatments, most drug companies are sitting out cure research. (One big exception is Merck, which is funding studies of some of its drugs' possible uses in eradication; Gilead is also looking at its compounds for cure candidates.) It's no mystery why. "The whole field suffers from the lack of a business model," says Jeff Sheehy, a San Francisco activist and CIRM board member. "A cure may make sense from a public-policy point of view, but not to a company." Unlike treatment, which must be taken daily for life, a cure would be a one-time intervention. "It's not that it's sinister and they don't want a cure. But it doesn't fit." Drugmakers' indifference can doom promising potential cures, as compounds owned by a company can't be used by anyone else. Many AIDS researchers are particularly excited about the eradication possibilities of a substance developed by Medarex. But Medarex was bought in 2009 by Bristol-Myers Squibb, which is testing the compound on cancer but doing nothing visible with it on HIV. (A spokeswoman says the company is "considering the use" of the drug in HIV research, but no trials are set.)

Yes, it’s sick that people’s lives and health are subject to corporate profits but that’s life, at least in America. With HIV, it’s just brought into sharp relief. Barbara Ehrenreich’s great quote is worth repeating: "From the point of view of the pharmaceutical industry, the AIDS problem has already been solved. After all, we already have a drug which can be sold at the incredible price of $8,000 an annual dose, and which has the added virtue of not diminishing the market by actually curing anyone."

More:
Real Talk About Curing HIV/AIDS
Maybe Just Maybe We’ve Found An HIV Cure
In Australia, Another Hint of HIV Cure

Reach this writer at michaelb@motherboard.tv.